Shaw v. Trinity Highway Products, LLC
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 10046
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- In a one-vehicle crash on Interstate 20, Debra Shaw died and Patricia Alderman was injured when the Nissan struck the ET-2000 guardrail end cap.
- The end cap is designed to absorb impact by extruding guardrail w-beam; the accident allegedly caused the end cap to intrude into the truck cabin.
- Shaws sued Trinity Highway Products, LLC for design defect, marketing defect, and negligence; Trinity moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgments, and the trial court granted take-nothing judgments.
- The trial court also struck a document the Shaws submitted as summary judgment evidence; the Shaws appeal arguing preservation and evidentiary issues.
- The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed, upholding the traditional SJ ruling and rejecting the no-evidence SJ preservation challenge and marketing defect claim, among others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether traditional SJ on 82.008 supports judgment | Shaws contend genuine fact issues exist; 82.008 evidence insufficient for preemption. | Trinity argues 82.008 evidence and federal standards support summary judgment. | Traditional SJ affirmed on 82.008 grounds |
| Whether Shaws preserved no-evidence SJ arguments | Shaws properly referenced exhibits A–H and incorporated them by reference. | Shaws failed to attach exhibits; not preserved. | Preservation found; no waiver |
| Whether marketing defect claim survives | Shaws showed marketing defect caused injuries due to warnings/instructions. | No evidence that warnings would have prevented harm; no causative nexus. | Marketing defect claim defeated; take-nothing judgment affirmed |
| Whether trial court abused by striking evidence | Striking Trinity website printout was improper. | Issue not adequately briefed; waiver and lack of authority. | Waived; no reversal on this ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (summary judgment standards; favorable inferences)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (no-evidence standard; burden on respondent)
- City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979) (preservation requirements for appeals)
- BIC Pen Corp. v. Carter, 251 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2008) (federal preemption in design defect claims; Carter context)
- USX Corp. v. Salinas, 818 S.W.2d 473 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1991, writ denied) (marketing defect causation element)
- American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. 1997) (marketing defect standards; warning duties)
- McMahon Contracting, L.P. v. City of Carrollton, 277 S.W.3d 458 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) (traditional SJ grounds; multiple grounds may support SJ)